1) There have been a number of reports about relief troops ready to go and frustrated at not getting the order to go in.

2) Who cares if negative reports about Benghazi came in before the election?
It's still bad behavior for the administration to lie about it. It's like a con man trying to defend himself against the charge of fraud by saying "X was a greedy moron to think I could sell him the Brooklyn Bridge". While this statement is true, that in no way excuses the impropriety of the act.

3) In constitutional terms, I do think Watergate is worse. In that Nixon was attempting to use Presidential power to mess with the outcome of a "free" election. In Benghazi, the Administration is acting within the scope of their foreign relations power. Now, we can question their use of their power. The constitutional question comes about the veracity of their answers to Congress.

However. the original act, was not unconstitutional. It might be incompetent, but the administration has full discretion in conducting foreign affairs, and the President is the Commander in Chief. The decisions about Benghazi were Obama's to make and he was acting withing the scope of his proper power.

P.S. What do you mean theory? We know the administration was lying when they tried to lay the blame on the movie. They knew it wasn't true. Their own admissions make that clear. That's the key point. Though, I don't think that mere lying to the public is an impeachable offense.

There were units ready to come to the rescue? If you have some proof of that, please cite from a Congressional oversight report and not right wing news media.

It seems to me that the whole brouhaha is about frustration that the game of gotcha played by the GOP produced no results because less partisan people could see it was a chickensh*t move to try to profit off of the deaths of Americans at Benghazi.

The GOP even thinks the guy that made the blasphemous movie is some kind of hero, even though his acts did cause a lot of trouble for our country. And, the GOP is also very unrealisitc about how it would be to be in the command center when there are riots in several muslim countries that were, in fact, prompted by the blasphemous film. Of course, the fact that there were riots going on all over the place could have caused some confusion. And, until the guys who did the attack in Lybia are arrested and prosecuted and confess to something different, nobody can say that the decision to attack at that moment was not influenced by the blasphemous film and the riots that were occurring in several muslim countries that day.

I would like to see a write up of what specifically they had in terms of weapons, what the mob had, etc etc.
I wonder what the defending side's chances would have been if they'd had some equipment and training about how to mount resistance.

I know we cant trust the Obama regime to provide us with even basic information we can believe is truthful on this affair, but 20 or so people could hold out against a mob long enough for help to have arrived (provided the white house doesnt call them off of course...)

If they are performing high risk duties like arms smuggling in a high risk area like a country where the government just collapsed, you think they could have ordered an extra case of carbines for them or whatever.

I would like to see a write up of what specifically they had in terms of weapons, what the mob had, etc etc.
I wonder what the defending side's chances would have been if they'd had some equipment and training about how to mount resistance.

I know we cant trust the Obama regime to provide us with even basic information we can believe is truthful on this affair, but 20 or so people could hold out against a mob long enough for help to have arrived (provided the white house doesnt call them off of course...)

If they are performing high risk duties like arms smuggling in a high risk area like a country where the government just collapsed, you think they could have ordered an extra case of carbines for them or whatever.

The hole thing stinks to high heaven. & before I go any further.
**** you Cosmo with a syringe full of aids!!!!!!!!!
As for weapons on location. a few RPGs.Lots of small arms, & I believe 2 mortar tubes. Take away the mortar rounds that hit the roofs. IMO our boys win this thing.

__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight.
Your tactics suck.

I would like to see a write up of what specifically they had in terms of weapons, what the mob had, etc etc.
I wonder what the defending side's chances would have been if they'd had some equipment and training about how to mount resistance.

I know we cant trust the Obama regime to provide us with even basic information we can believe is truthful on this affair, but 20 or so people could hold out against a mob long enough for help to have arrived (provided the white house doesnt call them off of course...)

If they are performing high risk duties like arms smuggling in a high risk area like a country where the government just collapsed, you think they could have ordered an extra case of carbines for them or whatever.

How many Americans, State department and CIA security personnel, were safely evacuated from Benghazi that night?

The attack at the Annex was repelled for several hours, until the Lybian government militia allies arrived to facilitate the safe evacuation of everyone except for the two Ex-Navy Seal CIA contractors who were killed by mortar rounds while repelling the attack on the Annex.

That was the plan for security. The Ambassador knew that. The CIA security people knew that. This Deputy Ambassador Hicks likes to go on tv and to Congress and say that he is so surprised that was the plan when he really means is that he thinks it should not have been the plan, but he gets away with that because the press and politicians really can't say out loud the fact that Ambassador Stevens and the CIA security detail had the responsibility to protect the Americans in Lybia with full knowledge of the security situation and the planned response to attacks. It was their job to retreat to a safer area if they knew or thought they were not adequately protected.

The Ambassador is responsible for the safety of his people in country. The fact that this Ambassador Stevens who had a tremendous record of service to our country got caught and killed and one of his State Dept. people got killed and two ex-Navy Seal CIA contractors got killed indicates that sometimes terrorists kill Americans.

You act like some post-mortem is needed to determine that the plan to save the day was not executed. The security plan was executed. The people involved knew the plan. And if the people involved knew that an attack was coming, they would have evacuated Benghazi before 4 Americans got killed.

Ambassador Stevens was not in Benghazi to take Hamburger Hill or Mount Siribachi. If he knew something was coming he could have ordered evacuation and requested support according to the plan in place with CIA and the Lybian government and everybody would have said good call.

The hole thing stinks to high heaven. **** you Cosmo with a syringe full of aids
As for weapons on location. a few RPGs
lots of small arms & I believe 2 motar tubes. Take away the motar rounds that hit the roofs. IMO our boys win this thing.

I think the main concern for the defending side would be fire, but... well, look at Pavlov's House.

Translation. HCF is not able to point out any statement that he disagrees with and explain why he disagrees with it.

We understand you.

You cut and paste a bunch of partisan crap that other people write. Or, you take a regular news story and lie about it by crafting a dishonest headline.

We get it. You are not very capable of explaining much. You have decided to be a political partisan, and so you always root for one side and against the other and are always willing to be dishonest about it.

& dnt act as if you wouldn't enjoy it

__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight.
Your tactics suck.

I think the main concern for the defending side would be fire, but... well, look at Pavlov's House.

It's my guess. Once the guys were taken out on the roofs, shit went down hill fast from there
Even if that wouldn't have happened. They may have run out of ammo & been over run. Either way, nobody cared. Vegas was the only option on that night.

__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight.
Your tactics suck.

It's my guess. Once the guys were taken out on the roofs, shit went down hill fast from there
Even if that wouldn't have happened. They may have run out of ammo & been over run. Either way, nobody cared. Vegas was the only option on that night.

Its hard to even discuss, we have few details we can actually believe. They lied fast and hard from the start and havent stopped yet.

I just thought it seemed like an interesting self defense hypothetical scenario

In a humiliating retreat from a piece she had staunchly defended, "60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan admitted on Friday morning that she and the news magazine had made a "mistake" in their reporting of a controversial story about the Benghazi attacks. She apologized to viewers and said "60 Minutes" will issue a correction about the reliability of one of her key sources, security contractor Dylan Davies, on its next program.

"We were wrong to put him on air," she said, adding, "We will apologize to our viewers and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night."

It emerged on Thursday that Davies, who gave Logan a hair-raising, detailed account of his actions during the 2012 attack, had previously told the FBI that he hadn't even gone to the site where it took place. This was the second occasion where Davies had been recorded as saying that he wasn't at the scene of the crime. He had already admitted to doing so once, but CBS and Logan had firmly backed him, saying that he had lied to his employer to protect himself.

Lying to the FBI, however, is a different matter, and "60 Minutes" pulled the report and said it was "reviewing" the new information to determine whether it had been misled.

That review led to Logan's apology on Friday morning.

"The most important thing to every person at '60 Minutes' is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake," she said, calling it a very "disappointing" situation.

Logan said that the emergence of the FBI was "the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source." She said that the show had taken the vetting of Davies "very seriously," but that he had "misled" everyone.

"CBS This Morning" host Norah O'Donnell asked Logan, "Why would you stand by this report after Dylan Davies admitted lying to his own employer?" Logan said that Davies had always portrayed that lie as part of a patriotic, selfless desire to help his fellow security workers, even though he was not supposed to be at the compound.

CBS has been heavily criticized for its handling of the controversy. HuffPost's Michael Calderone summed up the network's actions in a tweet on Friday morning:

__________________
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

updated 2:26 PM EST, Fri November 8, 2013(CNN) -- CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday and said the network was "wrong" for a "60 Minutes" report that raised questions about the Obama administration's response to last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The assault left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"In this case, we were wrong. We made a mistake," she said on "CBS This Morning." "That's disappointing for any journalist. It's very disappointing for me."

A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.

That story cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The "60 Minutes" story was cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.
Benghazi attack timeline

Logan responded Friday to questions from CBS's Norah O'Donnell, who pressed her for details about Davies.

"What we know now is, he told the FBI a different story to what he told us," Logan said. "That was the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source and we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers."

Logan was also asked about how CBS vetted Davies and his story.
"We verified him, confirmed who he was, that he was working for the State Department at the time, that he was in Benghazi at the special mission compound the night of the attack," Logan said. "He showed us -- he gave us access to communications he had with U.S. government officials."

In a new book, "Jones" told the same story he told CBS. He also said he acted in violation of his employer's orders to stay away from the compound.
Logan said CBS has tried to contact Davies but has not heard from him.
Congressman: Benghazi questions need answers

The apology comes a day after CBS issued a statement saying, "60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction."

A U.S. official told CNN on Thursday that there were discrepancies between the contractor's accounts to the FBI and CBS, although the official did not specify them.

A second U.S. official told CNN the same thing Friday.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

When Logan was asked Friday why CBS was willing to stand by its report after Davies lied to his employer, she said, "because he was very upfront about it; that was part of his story."

Incident report raised questions

The CBS story first came into question because of an incident report filed by the contractor's employer, the Blue Mountain security company. The incident report, obtained by CNN and first reported in The Washington Post, said the contractor never reached the Benghazi compound.

The incident report also revealed the real name of "Morgan Jones" to be Dylan Davies.

CBS initially stood by the story after the incident report came to light. Davies said he never saw the incident report. But he said it matched a false account he gave his Blue Mountain supervisor to cover up that he had disobeyed the supervisor's order not to go to the compound.

In a statement to CNN this week, Davies said, "The account in my book is consistent with what I gave to the FBI and U.S. authorities about what happened in Benghazi."

CIA operatives to testify at classified Benghazi hearing
His co-author, Damien Lewis, also told CNN this week that Jones never wavered in his story.

"He's been consistent in the story from the word go," Lewis said. "Not only that, he's the kind of guy who downplays his role."

Reached Friday after CBS's apology, Lewis said he would have nothing more to say until Davies comments.

Jennifer Robinson, a spokeswoman for Threshold Editions, the publisher of Davies' book, issued a statement to CNN saying, "Although we have not seen the FBI report, in light of these revelations we will review the book and take appropriate action with regard to its publication status"

Hearing set for next week

CIA employees are scheduled to testify about the attack at a closed-door congressional hearing next week.

U.S. officials have said Stevens and information officer Sean Smith took refuge behind a heavy metal door at 10:30 p.m. on the night of the attack, about 30 minutes after attackers had breached the walls of the compound. The two were quickly overcome by smoke when attackers set fire to the building.

Also at 10:30 p.m., six security agents left a CIA annex a mile away. The six agents and 16 Libyan security officials regained control of the compound.

With the help of a rescue team that arrived from Tripoli at 1:15 a.m., the agents rescued about 30 Americans and took them to the CIA annex. They also took Stephens and Smith, although their conditions at that time have not been made clear.

In a humiliating retreat from a piece she had staunchly defended, "60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan admitted on Friday morning that she and the news magazine had made a "mistake" in their reporting of a controversial story about the Benghazi attacks. She apologized to viewers and said "60 Minutes" will issue a correction about the reliability of one of her key sources, security contractor Dylan Davies, on its next program.

"We were wrong to put him on air," she said, adding, "We will apologize to our viewers and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night."

It emerged on Thursday that Davies, who gave Logan a hair-raising, detailed account of his actions during the 2012 attack, had previously told the FBI that he hadn't even gone to the site where it took place. This was the second occasion where Davies had been recorded as saying that he wasn't at the scene of the crime. He had already admitted to doing so once, but CBS and Logan had firmly backed him, saying that he had lied to his employer to protect himself.

Lying to the FBI, however, is a different matter, and "60 Minutes" pulled the report and said it was "reviewing" the new information to determine whether it had been misled.

That review led to Logan's apology on Friday morning.

"The most important thing to every person at '60 Minutes' is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake," she said, calling it a very "disappointing" situation.

Logan said that the emergence of the FBI was "the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source." She said that the show had taken the vetting of Davies "very seriously," but that he had "misled" everyone.

"CBS This Morning" host Norah O'Donnell asked Logan, "Why would you stand by this report after Dylan Davies admitted lying to his own employer?" Logan said that Davies had always portrayed that lie as part of a patriotic, selfless desire to help his fellow security workers, even though he was not supposed to be at the compound.

CBS has been heavily criticized for its handling of the controversy. HuffPost's Michael Calderone summed up the network's actions in a tweet on Friday morning:

Amount any of the frothy right wingers on this forum care whether any of this is actually true or not: immeasurably small.

Forgetting in 3...2...1...

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming raging against phantoms, perceived benefits of being a lazy minority and out of context slips of the tongue by political figures. Engage lizard brain!